MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
prabir
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 03:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prabir » 26 Jan 2010 04:25

This deal is taking place at a time, when India is experiencing an economic transition. So, this is the best time to facilitate building the private sector in defence manufacturing. This will also help bring in managerial competence in NAL, DRDO, DRDL, HAL.

MRCA deal could be way to start undoing all wrongs of the past.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4676
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Jan 2010 04:28

If it has to be a U.S. bird, may it be a Block III Super Hornet with the EPE engines. The F-16 is simply too old/small a platform to be viable in the long run. It won't be long before the oil rich Arabs sell/dole 'em out in favor of the JSF (my guess would be circa 2020).

In case of the Shornet, I suspect that Boeing is working with India regarding a proposal on the MCA. In this event, the Shornet purchase would have a strong degree of commonality with the MCA.

The EPE engines are a good sign! They give the Shornet a TWR that the EF-2000 would envy. Incorporating a few stealthy additions ala F-15SE and even a redesigned wing ala Shornet - 2000 would make for an interesting CIP.

Silent Hornet anyone? :twisted:

CM.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brando » 26 Jan 2010 04:38

^One of the most significant aspects of the SH bid is the price tag associated with the aircraft and the extensive local production possible with this bid. The price tag of near abouts $50 million is at a comfortable range where the loss of 1-2 aircraft due to pilot error or poor maintenance wouldn't put as big a dent as a successful Eurofighter or Rafael bid would. Whatever the political costs, economically the SH is a very strong contender.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Jan 2010 04:43

MCA must court Kaveri engines..

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4676
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Jan 2010 04:57

Brando wrote:^One of the most significant aspects of the SH bid is the price tag associated with the aircraft and the extensive local production possible with this bid. The price tag of near abouts $50 million is at a comfortable range where the loss of 1-2 aircraft due to pilot error or poor maintenance wouldn't put as big a dent as a successful Eurofighter or Rafael bid would. Whatever the political costs, economically the SH is a very strong contender.


As far as pilot error goes, iirc there was an article posted by a Shornet boss who was confident enough to suggest that he could pick up an avg. joe from the street and have him flying the aircraft within a few hours! the MMI on this a/c and ease of flying/safety (plus SA) are a v. strong point.

CM.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby jaladipc » 26 Jan 2010 06:05

Cain Marko wrote:.

In case of the Shornet, I suspect that Boeing is working with India regarding a proposal on the MCA. In this event, the Shornet purchase would have a strong degree of commonality with the MCA.

The EPE engines are a good sign! They give the Shornet a TWR that the EF-2000 would envy. Incorporating a few stealthy additions ala F-15SE and even a redesigned wing ala Shornet - 2000 would make for an interesting CIP.

Silent Hornet anyone? :twisted:

CM.


I just hope that people are not day dreaming.
a joint indo-US collaboration on MCA???????? :rotfl:
for gods sake ,lets roll back to the few months with no pain when LM was asked for consultancy in flighting testing for Tejas :mrgreen:
If US DOD is looking at providing a toned down version of AESA for SH in MRCA,how can one expect the might highness collaborate directly on a 5th gen fighter??? It could be either me drinking tooooooooo much vodka or people in Boeing smoking weed :shock:
Mr Sid says even fantasy has a limit :P

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brando » 26 Jan 2010 06:14

Cain Marko wrote:
Brando wrote:^One of the most significant aspects of the SH bid is the price tag associated with the aircraft and the extensive local production possible with this bid. The price tag of near abouts $50 million is at a comfortable range where the loss of 1-2 aircraft due to pilot error or poor maintenance wouldn't put as big a dent as a successful Eurofighter or Rafael bid would. Whatever the political costs, economically the SH is a very strong contender.


As far as pilot error goes, iirc there was an article posted by a Shornet boss who was confident enough to suggest that he could pick up an avg. joe from the street and have him flying the aircraft within a few hours!


That is absurd and most likely marketing rhetoric.

The SH is by no means a simple aircraft. While I haven't flown the aircraft personally, I have seen a very accurate simulation and it is a very technical machine. The USN spends a lot of flight hours in getting its pilots proficient enough to fly the SH with confidence.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5382
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 26 Jan 2010 06:28

Brando wrote:^One of the most significant aspects of the SH bid is the price tag associated with the aircraft and the extensive local production possible with this bid. The price tag of near abouts $50 million is at a comfortable range where the loss of 1-2 aircraft due to pilot error or poor maintenance wouldn't put as big a dent as a successful Eurofighter or Rafael bid would. Whatever the political costs, economically the SH is a very strong contender.


The price being quoted here of $50 million sounds unrealistically low for each SH. Even for the USN, the price was higher, at around $54 million and that includes no VAT. Looking at export sales will give a better idea of what price to expect, not the price for domestic customers.

Even if India had gone for a FMS sale, which it is not going to do for the MRCA, it would be higher than that $54 million per unit because the Pentagon includes a service charge. And all of this ignores that we would need to pay for ToT, ground support equipment, simulators, initial training of crews and technicians, spares, manuals, etc.

Going by what was one of the most clear cut proposals made by an OEM (I’m referring to the Saab proposal for Gripen NG for the Netherlands), where it clearly spelt out what equipment would be supplied and how much it would cost the Dutch- all those things added together cost nearly $60 million for each Gripen NG. I’d be hard pressed to see how a twin-engine SH could end up cheaper than that. Of course, I’m not including the F-414 EPE engines here, since if we do, the development costs for this as-yet-on-paper engine will need to be borne by us, although we may earn royalty for future sales of that variant.

My guess and it’s purely a guess, looking at the RAAF deal for 24 USN standard SH Block IIs, which didn’t include any assembly or ToT fees and then taking into account the much larger scale of the MRCA order, is that each SH would be in the $ 75-100 million range. Add in a few billion $ for the AMRAAMs, AIM-9Xs, JHMCS, Snipers, HARMs, JDAMs, Paveways and whatever other weapons the IAF orders, and it won’t end up costing us anything less than $14-16 billion for the IAF to get 6 squadrons of the MRCA inducted. That again takes no account of the additional expenses for each air base to get specialized equipment for these fighters and the cost of upgrading bases which is sunk cost and eventually good for the IAF only.

And what makes you say that there is extensive local production possible for this particular fighter? The same conditions for local assembly will be applied to all the OEMs and it is the US OEMs who have the tightest restrictions and laws to comply with, so here they have a distinct disadvantage, however much they keep painting a rosy picture to the media.

People who complain about Indian red-tapism would find that US laws related to ITAR are along similar lines, extensive, very strict and impose heavy penalties on companies that don’t comply for any reason. Unless the GoTUS urgently does some reviews of these ITAR laws and make them more export friendly (unlikely to happen anytime soon), it’s better to err on the side of caution and not buy a US fighter because implementing that contract on our side will become a nightmare. Simply securing all the licenses and permissions from the GoTUS for sensitive radar-blocking technology, advanced electronics, radars, etc. will take ages if the recent reports about LockMart’s delays in securing GoTUS permission in the N-LCA case are anything to go by. Before that it was Boeing which ended up in a similar quagmire in the LCA flight test support contract. Once the deal was awarded to EADS, all talk of delays in EVEN STARTING to implement the contract vanished. And going in for watered down equipment (as many US officials have stated may be the case) to avoid ToT of cutting edge systems is simply not acceptable from the IAF’s view point, although the Congress govt. may look at the strategic aspect and ignore this to our detriment.

In certain cases, where there is no talk of ToT and local assembly, FMS sales are a great way to avoid the long term delays associated with open tenders and related cancellations or legal battles. US firms will be able to fulfill offset obligations because they do business with several firms in India and as long as they don’t need to part with technology, they’re great.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby tejas » 26 Jan 2010 07:04

I am wary of any purchase from Umrikah but I have to admit this rendering of the F-16 in IAF colors is mouth watering.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f16/f-16in-1.jpg

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brando » 26 Jan 2010 07:25

Kartik wrote:The price being quoted here of $50 million sounds unrealistically low for each SH. Even for the USN, the price was higher, at around $54 million and that includes no VAT. Looking at export sales will give a better idea of what price to expect, not the price for domestic customers.

VAT ??? :rotfl: Does the Indian government apply a Value added Tax on its own defense procurement ?
Also, I said about 50 million, I didn't say 50 million. Further, the total price of the bid is dependent on the exact specifications of the SH and added services and accessories. Having domestically produced components could drive down the price a little bit or having the EPE engines could drive up the price higher and this is the reason I said that it was near abouts $50 million!
Also, you can't compare other foreign export sales of the SH to the Indian sale as the Indian sale has many unique terms and conditions, not to mention specific requirements like training etc that only apply to this order. While 124 aircraft isn't really as large an order as the USN order, it isn't a small order either and economy of numbers would apply to a greater extent that say sales to Australia or Brazil!

Kartik wrote:Going by what was one of the most clear cut proposals made by an OEM (I’m referring to the Saab proposal for Gripen NG for the Netherlands), where it clearly spelt out what equipment would be supplied and how much it would cost the Dutch- all those things added together cost nearly $60 million for each Gripen NG. I’d be hard pressed to see how a twin-engine SH could end up cheaper than that. Of course, I’m not including the F-414 EPE engines here, since if we do, the development costs for this as-yet-on-paper engine will need to be borne by us, although we may earn royalty for future sales of that variant.


You are clearly neglecting the fact that the Dutch ordered only a few dozen aircraft and they were built in Sweden. Where as the Indian order would have significant Indian offsets where Indian workers wouldn't need disability insurance and dental insurance etc. Add to this the fact that India has a modestly large order and you can see how the cost per airframe can be brought down.

Who said the F414 EPE was still "on paper" ??? The EPE project was partially funded by Federal programs while the EDE project is still being funded by the USN to reduce the Specific fuel consumption of the F414. The EDE is a working engine and has been tested in 2006 and progress is still being made on this engine through Federal funds. I doubt the Indian government could hope to claim "royalty" on the EPE as the program was also partly funded by the US federal government and Boring internally.

Kartik wrote:My guess and it’s purely a guess, looking at the RAAF deal for 24 USN standard SH Block IIs, which didn’t include any assembly or ToT fees and then taking into account the much larger scale of the MRCA order, is that each SH would be in the $ 75-100 million range. Add in a few billion $ for the AMRAAMs, AIM-9Xs, JHMCS, Snipers, HARMs, JDAMs, Paveways and whatever other weapons the IAF orders, and it won’t end up costing us anything less than $14-16 billion for the IAF to get 6 squadrons of the MRCA inducted. That again takes no account of the additional expenses for each air base to get specialized equipment for these fighters and the cost of upgrading bases which is sunk cost and eventually good for the IAF only.

The figure of $75-$100 million IMO is absolutely ridiculous even for a guess. You have no idea about the contents of the Australian order and you just know that 24 SH Block -IIs were delivered. The weapons packages or the additional electronics etc have not been disclosed. How can you extrapolate from such unknown variables ?
Besides if the SH Block 2 was really in the $100 million range, I doubt the Australians would have bothered to buy them in the first place considering that the JSF was promised to cost around $50 million when the US was planning to buy 2500 of these back in 2007 ! Do you think the Australians would buy an aircraft that you claim is twice as expensive as what they plan to get yet performs only half as well ??
As for the AMRAAMS, AIM-9Xs and etc, what makes you think that the IAF is going to buy these weapons along with the SH ? The MRCA as far as I know doesn't state a weapons package along with the aircraft. Also, considering that the IAF has access to European, Israeli and Russian AA missiles and avionics and is developing and indigenous LGB kits the need for AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs etc diminishes. Also, how can you count a follow on weapons package into the MRCA price tag ? If that were the case you could also add the pilot training costs, the fuel costs, the maintenance crew training costs, the new ground infrastructure costs etc .
Kartik wrote:And what makes you say that there is extensive local production possible for this particular fighter? The same conditions for local assembly will be applied to all the OEMs and it is the US OEMs who have the tightest restrictions and laws to comply with, so here they have a distinct disadvantage, however much they keep painting a rosy picture to the media.

The fact that Boeing has already good ties with the local Indian industry due to its long presence in the Indian civil aviation market and the fact that Boeing has declared that it is able to exceed the Indian government's offset requirements. The offset requirements that the Eurofighter and Rafael folk are mum about.

The US OEM's have strict restrictions on the transfer of new technologies that the US government has not sanctioned as you would expect from any well governed country. The F-18SH sale to India has the approval of Washington and the details of the specific crucial technologies like AESA etc could be made accessible should India sign the CISMOA.
Kartik wrote:Simply securing all the licenses and permissions from the GoTUS for sensitive radar-blocking technology, advanced electronics, radars, etc. will take ages if the recent reports about LockMart’s delays in securing GoTUS permission in the N-LCA case are anything to go by. Before that it was Boeing which ended up in a similar quagmire in the LCA flight test support contract. Once the deal was awarded to EADS, all talk of delays in EVEN STARTING to implement the contract vanished. And going in for watered down equipment (as many US officials have stated may be the case) to avoid ToT of cutting edge systems is simply not acceptable from the IAF’s view point, although the Congress govt. may look at the strategic aspect and ignore this to our detriment.

The internal deliberations of the IAF and the GoI are well up to them to decide but US technological transfers to the N-LCA program was not sanctioned by the US government at any point of time. Naturally, Lockheed's point of view would be irrelevant considering it is an American company bound by American laws. Had DRDO really wanted Lockheed's help they only had to deal with the US government to get approval for the specific technologies. Helping Indian strengthen the landing gear on an aircraft and adjust certain minor structural details is no state secret. Even the Russians could have helped and it would have been much cheaper too! The fact that the US government prevented Lockheed from helping in the N-LCA program means that the DRDO was requesting some sensitive technologies from them that the US government fell outside the current scope of bilateral understanding.
Kartik wrote:In certain cases, where there is no talk of ToT and local assembly, FMS sales are a great way to avoid the long term delays associated with open tenders and related cancellations or legal battles. US firms will be able to fulfill offset obligations because they do business with several firms in India and as long as they don’t need to part with technology, they’re great.

You seem to be under the impression that India is the first country that US companies are offering technology to and the US government is hampering legitimate business. That is not true at all. Lockheed, Boeing, McDonald Douglas, Raytheon etc have offered numerous technologies to so many countries on so many projects. The Japanese for instance have extensively used ToT from US companies and collaborated with US companies and institutions to build their own defense industrial base and expertise. American scientists was responsible for teaching the French how to develop MIRV technology. For giving the British the SLBM capability!
However, all these were possible due to fact that they existed within a safeguarded framework based on mutual understanding. Such a framework doesn't yet exist between India and the US. It's natural that things won't be as smooth and there will be more red tape when you are working outside the framework. It shouldn't be all that surprising or disappointing. Just like how a Chinese request to lease a Russian Akula-2 submarine may be denied while and Indian request might be approved!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Jan 2010 13:48

The wizards of Oz were up the creek regarding deplelting force levels and chose to buy 24 F-18SHs for around $100 million a piece,but their air force chief said "no more" despite pressure on Oz to buy more.In recent times,Oz has done several studies regarding their future challenges from China,etc. and found that even the JSF will be hardpressed to deal with China's large inventory of Flankers.The F-18SH will be outnumbered and outclassed in their opinion.They also didn't have too much faith in the Euro-canards either.Japan seems to echo the OZ findings,wanting the F-22 at any cost and if they can't get the top of the line JSF threaten to buy the Typhoon and develop their own stealth fighter for which a pogramme is already underway.The IAF has to view its entire force structure for the medium and long term when choosing the right aircraft.

During the Republic Day parade,one of the ex-IAF commentators had some extremely pithy comments to make about Indian "indigenisation",saying that there was deliberate conspiracy to sabotage indigenous efforts.he compared China's huge progress,first reverse engineering foreign aircraft,selling them to pak and now building their own designs-all in house.He said that the HF-24,a fine aircraft, was retired early because of foreign pressure to buy "Jaguars,MIGs,etc."."Not one gun barrel is indigenous",was another comment and "our metallurgy technology is lacking".The influence of foreign manufacturers and their shadowy middle-men saw to it that indigenisation was delayed .Looking at the LCA programme,one can see absolutely clearly that the project from time to time has recd. the most step-motherly treatment.One AM much involved at one time,who reportedly also told off our former pres. Kalam about the lack of enthusiasm for the project,told me that it was a "fraud" upon the nation involving all concerned.Why is the decision to get a new engine for the MK-2 taking so long? There are only two engines in the running.The delay in resolving a new engine will also kill off the naval LCA evntually.The commentator said that a weapons equipped LCA ""would only arrive in 2013" (can some one confirm this please if true?).
According to him,the reason for this is that babudom has steadily taken over all the key elements of decision making in defence matters.Tehcnocrats and professionals are prevented from becomning heads.Even the the service chiefs are looked at suspiciously if they meet.They have to get permission to do so! "The babus are scared of the military",was his comment,"not the people".The steady downgrading of rank in the services protocol wise continues.In earlier days,a "collector was equivalent to a Major,now he is the equivalent of a Colonel".The saddest aspect of this year's Republic Day is that the Indian flag did not fly at Lal Chowk in Srinagar.It is a national disgrace and heads must roll.It is abject surrender.I said a few days ago in another post that this govt. has the least interest in military matters barring who benefits from the deals and the farcial ad with the ex-Paki air fiorce chief's mugshot,plus this latest "surrender" at Srinagar shows how spineless this govt. is.In the MMRCA deal,the decision on the aircraft for the IAF will at this rate most probably be taken at the Pentagon or NATO HQ! Let us simply sit back and wait for the result.The speed with which the deal is going to be finalised and the warnings in the US aviation media about closing shop for two fighter lines if no immediate orders are found indicate in which direction the GOI is going.The appointment of a new pro-US NSA,who had a lot to do with the controversial nuclear deal too will ensure a US aircraft picked.It will be a courageous defence minister and possibly the FM too,who can fight off such enromous pressure coming from the highest office in the land.Let's see what tidings April brings.

RameshC
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 12:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RameshC » 26 Jan 2010 14:25

IMHO, Super Horny is still the ideal aircraft, firstly its the only aircraft that can be delivered by 2013 period. No other contender can confidently say that. Secondly the IRST on block 2 SH's will go on board the fuesalage and not drop tank like some people think.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getA ... emID=16843

New EPE engines will give each engine a reheat thrust of 120KN or 240 KN per aircraft which is far more than the 200 KN per aircraft that it currently delivers. The two seat SH is truly amazing, the rear pilot can be focued on A2G while the front pilot can focus on A2A, simultaneously. The new engines will allow it have better performance in all envelopes including the unforgiving North and Deserts in India. Not to forget its stall free, high aoa performance without a TVC is also truly amazing. Even in a dogfight, the SH will have an edge because it simply carries more gun rounds than the competition, the mig, Ef, rafale, Gripen carry between 120 to 150 rounds, not enough while dealing with multiple manveuring targets while the SV and SH carry between 500 to 540 rounds, enough to give furball advantage. SH also has the lowest cost per flight in all twin engined aircraft and USN is currently testing it with Biofuel blends which also makes this aircraft the most environment friendly.

All the latest weapons in US inventory are deployed on the SH and Block 3 is already on the drawing board and will be ready to hit the skies in 2020 just in time for our additional order of 75 aircraft, while the rest of the contenders have trouble coming up with upgrades for now.

Now US also has more space, larger scale and better networked training, also essential during initial phases while our instructors learn to fly. the SH is also one of the easiest fighters to fly and IAF is bound to find its cockpit funstionality and maturity very impressive. Plus with repeat visits to US red flag excercises our fighters will have better training. such after sales service isnt offered by others including Russia. Dont even remember when the IAF did some simulated excercises with Russia. Now the price of the SH will be lower than the Rafale, EF and it can already play more roles than others, it has proven AWACS and tanker roles as well.

coming to TOT, if the GE F414 wins the LCA contest which it will considering it is cheaper, more thrust and requires little developmental work, the SH if it wins will come with full-tot for engines. The dumbed down radar article that was posted is from 2007, hardly relevant because the dynamics of the competition have changed, the official word from Boeing is still classified, will depend on the US govt. now i believe competition will push the US to give out full-tot and source codes customization. The SH's offset plan is also better, which will rely lots on the private sector in the supply chain, unlike deals from Russia and France which on previous occasions limited private participation. looking at scorpene and mirage fiascos, well Rafale is not at all interesting. We'll get more tot going for the SH than tot going for EF because most of the crucial parts and weapons on the EF are US made and they will less keen tot on a european bird. Gripen will suffer the same fate. we'll get more tot if we go directly to the US for the SH. Boeing already has lots of infrastructure and are very keen on furthering their relationship with India. Boeing being the largest exporter in the US gives them lots of lobbying power and leverage which other contenders dont have such say in their home countries or aboard.

Mig-35 wont begin production till 2013 and 2014 and hence the mig will come too late. The f-16 well, not too keen on it though its a benchmark 4.5 gen aircraft

RameshC
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 12:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RameshC » 26 Jan 2010 16:00

India was given a oppourtunity to become part of the f-35 but we refused, i dont see any reason why we can't have US collabo on the MCA. Kaveri with over 100KN+ thrust will be a minimum requirement for the twin-engined MCA and god only knows how long it will take for it be ready, hence i dont see why the GE F414 EPE with 120KN thrust each can't be used on the MCA. If we buy the SH with EPE, we can fund the TVC for the EPE and put that upgraded TVC capable F 414 on board the MCA and eventual 75 block 3 super hornets that we can order, we'll have 126 block 2+ and 74 block 3 versions , get royalities because every single USN SH will eventually recieve this upgrade. Plus since if we pick the GE for the LCA and the SH, we'll surely have full-tot on the GE, hence we simply order more of them for the MCA. Now the argument of US sanctions is getting really old because i really dont see the possibility of sanctions on India. India is a large country and now have enough economic power to prevent the US from doing so. Besides with growing Indo-US ties, the US has the most to gain with billions in nuke deals, arms deals. FMS is the least corrupt option and due to massive scales we can have reasonable prices and good proven hardware.

Its not too far fetched to see Indo-US special ops if indeed Pak needs to be stripped from its nuke status. Because the biggest threat if Pak dis-integrates is to US and India. EUMA inspections in our case are to be held once a year at a location of our choosing, a status not offered even to the Brits.

US is a recent partner and hence we have to let the relationship mature slowly and it will. Slowly but surely they'll win lots of deals: P-8I, C-130J, C-17, Chinook, Apache, M-777, Strykers, Super Hornets, F-35s will find their way into our inventory. The question is not "do we deal with the US or not " but how to manage and improve the relationship.

Besides weapons trials is where the US will demonstrate its full abilties and IAF is bound to be impressed. US wont even allow half of the most advanced weapons to tested while we put the EF, Rafale, Gripen through their paces, simply because they aren't integrated yet. EU weapons are often 2 to 3 times more expensive. Looking at the whole package its either the Super hornet delivered on time or the mig-35 delivered in 2015, either way only these two stand a good chance. Super Hornet is better than the mig, hence SH wins hands down.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9918
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 26 Jan 2010 16:22

But problem with any US product is the political one mainly. We can not simply trust them. Not this Obama Administration. Other one will be Tech transfer. I don't thing we can expect much from US on the ground also. Cost of SH is also not small.

RameshC
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 12:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RameshC » 26 Jan 2010 16:50

Narayana Rao wrote:But problem with any US product is the political one mainly. We can not simply trust them. Not this Obama Administration. Other one will be Tech transfer. I don't thing we can expect much from US on the ground also. Cost of SH is also not small.


The TOT will certainly be more than EF and Gripen simply because EF and Gripen use lots of critical US parts and the US can simply refuse to offer tot on them, now these are things like engines, radar computers, a good look below will show you just how many US companies are part of Rafale, Gripen and EF programs.

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detai ... er_Typhoon

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detai ... ult_Rafale

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detai ... _39_Gripen

contrary to what they say even the Rafale's infamous Spectra EW suite was made in the US, though Dassault may own it, the tot still requires US clearance. lots of US companies and their EU sudsidiaries are a major part of the supply chain for these programs and hence their claims of full-tot are useless till US approves. In order to ease logictical nightmares, we need to simply order the mig-35 if deadlines are of no importance or the one of the teens.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 26 Jan 2010 17:26

Brando wrote:... there was an article posted by a Shornet boss who was confident enough to suggest that he could pick up an avg. joe from the street and have him flying the aircraft within a few hours!

That is absurd and most likely marketing rhetoric.



Maybe the Europe & French & Sewedes & Russians are almost as good as US as long as their aircraft are concerned.

But US would beat ANYBODY is marketing these toys.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby jaladipc » 26 Jan 2010 18:16

Lately Am I just seeing many US fan boys posting the already grinded stuff about f-16 and 18 again and again?
Fan boys: Before you want to post your remarks about the teens,its highly suggested to go through the previous threads and archives . Stop irritating the readers and followers by re-posting the same again and again.
Any help in this regard is highly appreciated.
Jai Hind.

RameshC
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 12:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RameshC » 26 Jan 2010 19:11

jaladipc wrote:Lately Am I just seeing many US fan boys posting the already grinded stuff about f-16 and 18 again and again?
Fan boys: Before you want to post your remarks about the teens,its highly suggested to go through the previous threads and archives . Stop irritating the readers and followers by re-posting the same again and again.
Any help in this regard is highly appreciated.
Jai Hind.


i have been seeing a lot of anti US stuff as well, matter of fact this entire forum seems anti US at times, so Russian, French and EU fan boys please stop posting the same things over and over again as well. actually its more annoying to see so much anti US sentiment when everything that is happening today shows the even the MOD has more relaxed and accepting view of the US and isn't shying away from acquiring US hardware, so in reality slowly but surely your anti US stance doesnt mean anything to the MOD, they'll still buy from them regardless of what you think. I am just posting the important and relevant stuff, the fact remains only the teens can be delivered on time and with little trouble and corruption. Fact is the growing chances of a US win has got people here worried.

prabir
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 03:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prabir » 26 Jan 2010 20:52

Posts regarding US Arms look like Military Channel (Discovery). Even when MMS is pro-US, that does not mean deal with go to US. In the end, in our system of "checks and balances", the winner will be the one that rates highest on

-- Political package
-- Extent of ToT
-- Price and value for money
-- Sanctions proof
(Note the nuclear deal with Russia and you will understand what a good deal it is and others just pale in comparison)
-- Usage monitoring
We are going to buy from a source that does not tell us where to use it and where not to use it.
In this respect, US is the most meddlesome.
-- How the deal benefits India in developing own manufacturing base (Private and Public)
-- Is there a positive trickle down effect on LCA and other DRDO programs
Here, Russia and Europeans stand out

Decision will be objective and it won't be a sell out to anyone.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby tejas » 26 Jan 2010 20:55

The US will be more than happy to sell India billions upon billions of shiny new toys, that we can agree on. How can you so confidently state ToT particularly source codes for AESA radar will be offered? As for ToT for a state of the art gas turbine engine NO WAY. GE didn't even offer to team up with GTRE to improve the Kaveri.

Unlike the Russians, Israelis and French I cannot think of a single technology/weapon system the US has transferred to India to allow indigenous production. As for being invited to participate in the JSF, this was hinted at by LM spokesmen as a "natural" progression from an F-16 buy ( as idiotic an argument as I've ever heard). Look at the UQ, they sank billions into the JSF development and had to run away with their tail between their legs (as poodles will do) when Uncle said no to source codes for the JSF.

I'd rather subsidize someone else's MIC rather than someone who provides FREE weapons to a lunatic neighbor to the west who has one and only one use for those weapons.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby jaladipc » 26 Jan 2010 21:24

RameshC wrote:
jaladipc wrote:Lately Am I just seeing many US fan boys posting the already grinded stuff about f-16 and 18 again and again?
Fan boys: Before you want to post your remarks about the teens,its highly suggested to go through the previous threads and archives . Stop irritating the readers and followers by re-posting the same again and again.
Any help in this regard is highly appreciated.
Jai Hind.


i have been seeing a lot of anti US stuff as well, matter of fact this entire forum seems anti US at times, so Russian, French and EU fan boys please stop posting the same things over and over again as well. actually its more annoying to see so much anti US sentiment when everything that is happening today shows the even the MOD has more relaxed and accepting view of the US and isn't shying away from acquiring US hardware, so in reality slowly but surely your anti US stance doesnt mean anything to the MOD, they'll still buy from them regardless of what you think. I am just posting the important and relevant stuff, the fact remains only the teens can be delivered on time and with little trouble and corruption. Fact is the growing chances of a US win has got people here worried.

My reply might be purely OT,
Indian will be The ultimate looser in dealing with US.US never honoured Indian interests even at the minute scale.I call myself as a nationalist and patriotic.Hence the national security of my country is my primary task.You might have the enough stomach to take more suicidal bombings and parliament/mumbai type attacks,but not me.Every dollar we spend on US definitely got a share of free weaponry for pakistan.And no need to elaborate where the free weaponry will be used against.
If one has to write about the history of India and its culture/civilization it will take ages,similarly same ages will consume to put all the things done by US on paper for the sake of its own national interests while screwing others.
Few good examples are the lone surviving terrorist nation on our western border.Would I take a chance to bring the root cause of terrorism in the subcontinent?especially in kashmir which later swelled to the rest of the country?
Its all because of the US meddling in Afghan and grouping and feeding muzahidheens and AQ,..... which later spread its wings in the Kashmir in the early 90`s.Many journalists over the world many times confronted the CIA activities going alongside ISI in destabilizing India.I am not an Ostrich keeping my head in the sand when threat comes in and relaxes while safe.
Just because Indian economy was swollen and Indians got money to spend on,US is showing its business standards but not its strategic relationship.If MI6 people dont even trust the CIA agents they work with,why should India trust US in the first place? Can you attest me that there will all in all no probability the same weaponry that US SELLS to India today will not be donated to Pakistan for FREE in future? I am not living in a fools paradise to simply believe what the mindset of a UPA person or a fan boy matters.
A critically important saying is that "We cant live in the past ,but we can learn from the past". We gotta have to learn and behave period.
But a $15 billion weaponry from US and of that $2 billion/year will be donated to pakistan along with some advanced snipper pods and stuff to take on us.Are we feeding the terrorists with our own hands??????? A million dollar question eh? :P

SShah
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 11:25
Location: California

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SShah » 26 Jan 2010 21:39

Our sober UPA government must speak up and ask US to stop arming Munna immediately OR unkil won't be allowed to enter into the Indian defense market. It's just simply beyond me why are we so lured into the P8i or the HC130 etc.. There should be a clause in every RFP - country who wants to participate in an Indian RFP can't sale/gift anything to munna..

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 27 Jan 2010 00:49

History and influences behind the the MMRCA RFI's & mysterious last minute inclusion of American crafts in the race. Wonder if it points towards changing political trends and possibly attraction towards American wepon systems.

Twist came when then Defence Minister Pranab Mukerji in an interview said that RFI will also be send to American companies ,it was unexpected for many since IAF never operated any American Jets in its long History, this announcement by Defence minister saw lot of activates in Pentagon ,it was totally unexpected for Americans Military officials.

There was confusion In American Companies too, only after US government gave clearance the confusion was cleared. In 2004 the Requests for Information (RFI) were issued to only four vendors Dassault (Mirage 2000-5), Saab (JAS 39 Gripen C/D), Mikoyan (MiG-29OVT) and Lockheed Martin (F-16C and D).



Irony is that though the F/A-18 & Eurofigther were last minute entries & are now far ahead in the race, if reports are to be beleived...

Well... the Indian procurement system though long & painful, it works at least to attract the right competitors and get them to field their best products. :lol:

Later on competition got bigger when Boeing and EADs jumped in with F-18 E/F and Euro-fighter which where technically more superior to what was offered by other aircraft manufactures.

To stay in the race and not be left out Dassault replaced Mirage-2000-V with their latest fighter Rafale, then came back to back changes in offers from other manufactures as well Lockheed Martin offered F-16 NG or now called F-16 IN which is an advance variant of F-16 Block 60 which only air force of UAE has in its inventory.

While Russians pulled out Mig-29ovt based on a Old airframe of Mig-29 and brought in a new full fledged aircraft with its own new airframe with design similarities and other changes and designated it Mig-35, while Swiss not to be left behind in the biggest fighter aircraft deal in decades to come announced a New Gripen which was called Gripen NG (Next Generation).



Makes for an interesting read....

http://www.mynews.in/News/India_progres ... 6302.html#

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 27 Jan 2010 00:58

But Americans and EADS were the first to offer these advanced puppies, then only it took some french brain scratching to offer Rafale, and Migs papered the 35ovt, while Gripen NG is still in test bed.

Kudos to Boeing and EADS, while the rest are paper planes (in a sense), including the F16-IN.

--
just leaving the politics apart for now.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 27 Jan 2010 01:01

couldn't help but with all the whining against the US and it arming and favoring PAK regardless of it knowing where it stands, here is a general question to the entire BRF community...(talk about suicide!, here we go)
The US is pursing what's best IN IT'S INTEREST..It has nothing to do with India or Pakistan; it is all defined according to their REGIONAL policy!
Look at the Middle East, the US supplies the BEST weapons to Israel and then turns around and gives AID to GAZA?? Now does this logic make sense?? In the same scenarios if it is offering weapons to India, it will justifiably give aid to Pakistan, (remember they favor not to tilt the balance) and of course there is always talks about countries that are willing to play by the rules of the good ole US OF A getting rewarded... Like Bush Jr. rewarded us with the Nuke deal (remember our Sardar's U-Turn on Iran), baba Obama needs to reward Pak with Harpoons, F-16's and UAV's to continue assisting and keeping the terror forces in and around their neighborhood while keeping the US safe.
India can hate US all it wants’ for arming Pakistan, but at the same time it will involve itself romantically because of the China. The US itself, can give India the 1 finger Salute, but it needs India to stay soft on Pakistan, and its support to contain China's rapid expansion. Technology wise, India has traditionally looked to the Soviets in all but one area, where the Soviets are no longer the masters i.e. their Naval power (minus the AKULA submarines of course) and the sensor fused networks where the US and Israel are the prime Masters. India needs the best of both worlds, hence the best hardware and the software to go along with it.
Remember every country looks out for their own interest, be it the US, India, Pakistan, etc... So is there any real value to say things like "Unkil should not be allowed into our defense market" because it sells weapons to Pakistan???
Money talks, bullshit walks ~ this is something that goes for ANY country, not just the US. India sold aircrafts to Thailand, when UK opposed (why? Indian interest, it's telling the US to go soft on Thailand why?? Indian interest), France sold jets to Paki's, does that mean we are no longer dealing with France(should we cancel the Scorpene?, the Mirage upgrade deal? the LGB's? the HMD's??), Israel was willing to sell the Phalcon to Chinese, until the US intervened and we got on the bus which obviously would not have been the case if the US had allowed the sale to China, we would have gone running to Russia to counter it. Swedes deal with Paki, are we to throw out the Grippen? German sells Subs to Pakistan, are we no longer intersted in training with German Special Forces??? And best of all Ukraine sells Tanks to Pakistan, does that mean that Indian and Ukrainian contracts get terminated (for uranium, Il-76 airframes, IT, etc...)
Look NO ONE likes a country who would sell arms to their Enemy/Rivals, but this is the world that we live in, where everyone looks for their own interest. The only way for India to give all of them a 1 finger salute is by having 100% self reliancey in their products, which clearly is not the case. This is where the great Chanakyaan does what it does best and hence has an open door policy and welcomes all and decides how to best approach the situation.

Look out for the SH to join the IAF inventory regardless of whether you ( :D or :x )

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8164
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 27 Jan 2010 01:13

What people should understand is that the US will continue to give aid to the begger nation regardless of whether we buy their weapons or not. The arms contracts between India and the US companies have minuscule amounts involved compared to the huge contracts awarded by the US military to those same companies. If we refuse to buy their weapons just as a protest it will not make them stop giving aid to pakistan. The stakes just aren't high enough.
So if we are faced with a situation where an american weapon system is the best available there is no reason to not buy it just because the US gives freebies to pakistan.It will only hurt us in the future because not only will our armed forces be deprived unnecessarily of the best weapon system but the pakis will probably get it anyway. So how does that help us?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4521
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 27 Jan 2010 01:20

Unless US gives ToT for the vital items ( AESA in this case), there is no reason to purchase from US. Why purchase from US and support the jobs there, and also cross-subsidise what US gives to pakistan for free? Might as well purchase from Europe/Russia. Europe is selling them for hard cash, and if the pakis go bankrupt trying to match india in defence purchases, it is much better for us. It will also be a political message to the US too. In these tough times, those jobs are necessary for US too. They can live without our orders, no doubt about that. But instead of just telling them in words that we don't like what they are doing, let us take our business elsewhere.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 27 Jan 2010 01:43

Eurofighter Vs Super Hornet!

Europeans brag about beating the F-15's in a dogfight (in informal NATO exercises) and American's call it thrash talk... :rotfl:

The engagements, judging by a press release issued by Eurofighter, did not go well for the Americans. The Typhoons tore into a formation of eight F-15s playing the role of the attacker. "Eurofighters involved in a dogfight simulation against the F-15s enjoyed full control of the engagement,"


Americans claim its only a part of sales pitch to India where its pitted against the SH not F-15!!

That's some undiplomatic trash talk. But some serious money may be motivating the European NATO members to be disparaging. The crowing from Eurofighter (which is run by a consortium of the German-Italian-U.K.-Spanish governments) is not aimed at the United States, but at India. Eurofighter's Typhoon is considered a leading contender in a $10.4 billion contract to sell 126 warplanes to India.


Wonder how low everyones going to stoop... try to win by bringing each other down... :rotfl: We've already seen Lockheed and Dassault have a go at each other.. (claims that ones eing dumped out of the competition citing failure at tech eval stage and the other stealing crucial documents from MOD)

Ladies & Gentleman.. Let the games begin!!! :twisted:

Check it out -

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... zz&mag=pop

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 27 Jan 2010 01:46

Wouldn't BVR take a slight higher priority for MRCA than the dogfights?

prabir
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 03:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prabir » 27 Jan 2010 02:27

SShah wrote:Our sober UPA government must speak up and ask US to stop arming Munna immediately OR unkil won't be allowed to enter into the Indian defense market. It's just simply beyond me why are we so lured into the P8i or the HC130 etc.. There should be a clause in every RFP - country who wants to participate in an Indian RFP can't sale/gift anything to munna..


We need to keep buying non-lethal stuff from Americans as they need to be kept engaged and at the same time, maintain our strategic priorities with Russians, Europeans.

dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby dorai » 27 Jan 2010 03:01

While the big boys is all blah blah the smaller company is adding to its sales...

Thailand Buys Six More Gripen Jet Fighters from Sweden
27.01.2010 | text Bjarne Wildau

The Royal Thai Government on Tuesday approved the procurement of six Gripens for 15,4 billion baht as proposed by the Ministry of Defense after the purchase of the first six aircrafts was earlier approved. Other related equipment and technologies as well as 18 scholarships for military personnel for postgraduate degrees were also endorsed in line with the 2011 plan to renovate aircrafts of the air force.


http://www.scandasia.com/viewNews.php?n ... un_code=se

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 27 Jan 2010 04:51

The biggest boy LM is still selling F 16s like anything. 20 odd were ordered a few weeks ago (can't remember which country).

Later on competition got bigger when Boeing and EADs jumped in with F-18 E/F and Euro-fighter which where technically more superior to what was offered by other aircraft manufactures.

To stay in the race and not be left out Dassault replaced Mirage-2000-V with their latest fighter Rafale, then came back to back changes in offers from other manufactures as well Lockheed Martin offered F-16 NG or now called F-16 IN which is an advance variant of F-16 Block 60 which only air force of UAE has in its inventory.

While Russians pulled out Mig-29ovt based on a Old airframe of Mig-29 and brought in a new full fledged aircraft with its own new airframe with design similarities and other changes and designated it Mig-35, while Swiss not to be left behind in the biggest fighter aircraft deal in decades to come announced a New Gripen which was called Gripen NG (Next Generation).


Gripen is Swedish not Swiss. DDM ?

RameshC
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 20 Sep 2009 12:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RameshC » 27 Jan 2010 05:10

wow you guys seem angry over US giving the beggar nation a few new f-16s, UAVs and missiles, while our closest strategic partner Russia gave out their entire military catalogue to the Chinese who due to no controls have copied everything and i mean everything, on any given day China is a much bigger threat to India than Pak. All of Pak can be dismantled in less than 36 hours. Russia has given subs, SAMs, A2A missiles, A2G missiles, Anti ship missiles, etc to china and did nothing while the Chinese copied everything right in front of their eyes, still they allow the re-export of Blunder engines and now soon the Paks will get 36 J-10 with re-exported Al-31 engines yet no problem, Russia is close friend, they treat us like 3rd world nation by giving us 25% work on PAKFA and you want full-tot for a near 4.5 gen aircraft. When Russia doesnt believe we cant absorb all this tech, US hardly has any woking experience with us.

Its because of the US, the stakes of this competiton were raised with AESA and other such proven technology and with such an offer all the others are still scrambling to get their basic AESA working. Rafale F-3+, EF Tranche 3, Gripen IN aren't ready yet and god only knows when they will be ready and arrive in India. Mig aint coming in time, so realistically speaking if IAF wants an aircraft by 2013, teens are their only option. Because none of the other can promise delivery before 2014-2015. Secondly all EU birds extensively use US weapons and many of the latest weapons are not deployed on them, EU weapons are very expensive. your being patriot makes no difference unless your in the MOD or one of the forces, its their primary duty to safe guard the nation, not yours. They make the choices. For years every single Indo-Russian/EU arms deal was corrupt, lots of bribes, the US comes along and with FMS wins fair and square. Fact is Russian equipment would have never made it so big in India if it wasnt for our politicians and their insatiable greed. while we're at it lets ban the french for supplying the Scorpene with AIP for PAk and failing to still deliver a single one on time to us. Lets ban Gripen for selling the AWACS, lets also ban Russia for allowing re-export of engines for the blunder and in the future the J-10, lets ban the US and let ban the British for no damn reason. We dont need an aircraft, all we need is the snake in our pants to smack our enemies.

I am not saying the US will give us source codes but they will allows us to customize, because we'll need them if we want to integrate new radar guided A2A/G missiles, thats a good excuse to demand them. they wont just give it to us but they will collaborate and make it work.

Now are we feeding terrorists with our own hands??? duh!! yeah!! all of the terror attacks that happened in their country have had some sort of local support, many people in our own nation, including crime organizations like D company and others do help, all these would not have been possible with full involvement of Indians or deshdrohis. How do you think Chinese grenades, weapons, ak copies get into the country? the maoists have been using them, these are Indians and in many areas we are feeding them, they have local sympathy and support in many strongholds. now TOT on engines depends on scale, if the GE wins the LCA mk-2 deal and the SH deal, i am sure we'll have full-tot on the engine because of the scale: 126 aircraft alone need 252 engines, plus atleast 126 spare engines, LCA need atleast 150-200 engines, so overall the sheer number that we need will make sure they give full-tot.

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/detailin ... an%20Force

UPA has nothing to do with anything, i remember in many interviews with Mr. Naik, he clearly says everytime the MRCA will land 2013, as far i know of there is only one aircraft that can delivered by 2013, even the F-16 will miss that date. time may not be of much essense to you but IAF wants more aircraft pronto, so if the EU birds can try to deliver by 2013, good for them. This is a dogfight between the EF, SH and Gripen, the only aircraft that can offer some commonality with the LCA with engines.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RoyG » 27 Jan 2010 05:25

RameshC = Keizer? lol

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4130
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby pgbhat » 27 Jan 2010 05:35

^ :lol:
RameshC wrote:wow you guys seem angry over US giving the beggar nation a few new f-16s, UAVs and missiles, while our closest strategic partner Russia gave out their entire military catalogue to the Chinese who due to no controls have copied everything and i mean everything, on any given day China is a much bigger threat to India than Pak. All of Pak can be dismantled in less than 36 hours. Russia has given subs, SAMs, A2A missiles, A2G missiles, Anti ship missiles, etc to china and did nothing while the Chinese copied everything right in front of their eyes, still they allow the re-export of Blunder engines and now soon the Paks will get 36 J-10 with re-exported Al-31 engines yet no problem, Russia is close friend, they treat us like 3rd world nation by giving us 25% work on PAKFA and you want full-tot for a near 4.5 gen aircraft. When Russia doesnt believe we cant absorb all this tech, US hardly has any woking experience with us.

As opposed to how US treats first world UK, its partner in JSF and F-22. :roll:
While we are a third world nation. I do understand that you use it in a derogatory sense. ;)

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby jaladipc » 27 Jan 2010 06:06

RameshC wrote:.............. Russia is close friend, they treat us like 3rd world nation by giving us 25% work on PAKFA and you want full-tot for a near 4.5 gen aircraft. When Russia doesnt believe we cant absorb all this tech, US hardly has any woking experience with us..............


I still remember what my dad( an Ex-Army officer who participated in the memorable 71 war)said when I was a kid.
Americans everyone including from that richard Nixon to Henry Kissinger called the whole Indians as B@stards and the leader of this very nation as a *******.

I just hope that you got the point ,before me going further to explain you in detail.
JAI HIND.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5382
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 27 Jan 2010 06:07

Brando wrote:VAT ??? :rotfl: Does the Indian government apply a Value added Tax on its own defense procurement ?


Every export sale includes VAT. I hope you know that. The GoI will obviously not add VAT to its own programs of indigenous procurement, so raising that ridiculous point and laughing doesn’t make you any smarter. I didn’t think that anyone would mis-understand such a point, but I guess I was wrong. If you didn’t understand the context of my comment relating to the quoted fly-away price of the US Navy’s SH Block II not being a barometer for export SH price due to no VAT for a domestic customer, then it’s not my fault. Perhaps you should learn to read better.

Also, I said about 50 million, I didn't say 50 million. Further, the total price of the bid is dependent on the exact specifications of the SH and added services and accessories. Having domestically produced components could drive down the price a little bit or having the EPE engines could drive up the price higher and this is the reason I said that it was near abouts $50 million!
Also, you can't compare other foreign export sales of the SH to the Indian sale as the Indian sale has many unique terms and conditions, not to mention specific requirements like training etc that only apply to this order. While 124 aircraft isn't really as large an order as the USN order, it isn't a small order either and economy of numbers would apply to a greater extent that say sales to Australia or Brazil!


Ok, you said about “$50 million”. So is $70-90 million “about $50 million”? Your figures are way off the mark and you’re trying to defend that based on semantics? There is a HUGE difference between fly-away unit price and fully-equipped unit price. For “about $50 million”, even the USN wouldn’t get a fully-equipped Super Hornet, so how will the IAF get it for that price? Because it’s a “unique” case you suggest. Yeah right.

Have you even looked at what price was quoted by the DSCA (a US Govt. Agency) for 36 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets with a very limited set of weapons, spares and ground equipment for Brazil? It was estimated by the DSCA to be $ 7 billion if all the options were exercised!


DSCA notification to US Congress on possible Brazilian F-18 E/F sale

The sale includes
28 F/A-18E Super Hornet, 8 F/A-18F Super Hornets, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, 4 F414-GE-400 spare engines, 36 AN/APG-79 Radar systems, 36 M61A2 20 mm Gun Systems, 36 AN/ALR-67(V) three Radar Warning Receivers, 144 LAU-127 Launchers, 44 JHMCS, 28 AIM-120 C-7 AMRAAMs, 28 AIM-9M Sidewinders, 60 GBU-31/-32 JDAMs, 36 AGM-154 JSOW, 10 AGM-88B HARMs and 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) ATFLIR pods. Also included are 36 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures, 40 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoys, Joint Mission Planning System, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, ferry and tanker support, flight test, software support, publications and technical documents, US Govt. and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.


Now just scale up this order from 36 units and associated spare parts and weapons at $ 7 billion to 126 and show us non-financial non whiz-kids how it works out to “about $50 million” per unit.

And please don’t try to pass your wishful thinking as facts when you have no data to back it up.

In the RAAF deal, the price including services, accessories and training was higher than $100 million per unit and it included absolutely no RAAF specific equipment as they were all USN standard SH Block IIs. If you add any IAF specific equipment that requires integration and testing, you drive up the price further. To suggest that just because an Indian sale will be “unique” it cannot be compared to other sales is quite silly because it’s only by comparing with other export prices that you can arrive at any guesstimate. Not just pull some figure out of thin air based on USN specific fly-away unit prices ($54 million per unit) and then try your level best to defend it saying using words like “unique terms and conditions”, “specific requirements”, “training etc. that only apply to this order”.

I don’t know what makes you think that any of the above terms will drive down the price. In the aircraft business, any such customization means added cost because you have low volumes and the cost of the development for both the OEM (engineering, releasing drawings) and manufacturing as well as suppliers (tools, jigs) will be split over the number of aircraft ordered. And the OEM doesn’t bear that cost, the customer does. Ok? Just for e.g. Emirates wanted granite counter tops on its 777s and the Boeing Interiors design team went mad, but complied. Who paid for the design, development, testing and production related costs? Emirates. Did it drive up the unit cost per plane? Yes it did. If the customization that is customer specific is something that the OEM doesn’t have as part of a standard configuration already, it means that the customer will need to fund that.

You are clearly neglecting the fact that the Dutch ordered only a few dozen aircraft and they were built in Sweden. Where as the Indian order would have significant Indian offsets where Indian workers wouldn't need disability insurance and dental insurance etc. Add to this the fact that India has a modestly large order and you can see how the cost per airframe can be brought down.


You’re displaying your ignorance here. What Dutch order?! The Dutch didn’t order any Gripen C/Ds or NGs, so I have no idea what you’re going on about a few dozen aircraft built in Sweden. This was purely a RFP response that was later on made public by the Dutch, in which Saab gave a detailed breakdown of equipment and the fixed cost for the offer. It was for 85 Gripen NGs and their associated simulators, some limited spares, training and some ground support equipment. That was more than the unit fly-away price because it included the cost of radar, electronics, EW suite, pilot gear, helmets, pylons, etc. But it didn’t include weapons and had no additional ToT fees either, nor the cost of setting up a new assembly line in the Netherlands. Without these it still was around $60 million per Gripen NG. Add all these and the cost steadily keeps climbing up.

When you want licensed production, you pay a fee to the OEM for each unit you licence produce. I hope you know of that- and it’s not a miniscule number so it can be wished away. In India’s case, the first Su-30MKIs produced at HAL ended up being nearly $10 million more than direct-sourced Su-30MKIs from Russia for various reasons that have been discussed on BRF ages ago.

Who said the F414 EPE was still "on paper" ??? The EPE project was partially funded by Federal programs while the EDE project is still being funded by the USN to reduce the Specific fuel consumption of the F414. The EDE is a working engine and has been tested in 2006 and progress is still being made on this engine through Federal funds. I doubt the Indian government could hope to claim "royalty" on the EPE as the program was also partly funded by the US federal government and Boring internally.


Who said it’s NOT on paper? As per Bob Gower it’s still not even in development, so is that not good enough for you? Is it in production? Is there a prototype being tested? No, in both these cases its not. It’s purely a concept as yet, with some preliminary work maybe having been done for checking the feasibility of the project.

The EPE is only going to go ahead when they find an international launch customer that funds the development. The USN is paying for the F414 EDE, not for the EPE, where the EDE basically improves the durability of the engine and its components and does nothing for increasing thrust. It’s pretty clear from this article that first broke the news about the F414 EPE that for GE to get the F414 EPE engine developed, flight tested and into production will require a new fan, and possibly even a change in compressor stages, meaning a change in configuration, even if the core is taken from the F414 EDE engine. And guess where this fan is currently? On paper .

If the IAF is the launch customer for the F414 EPE and funds its development either for the LCA Mk2 or the MRCA, then it will have a right to royalties generated from sales to the USN for components that the USN didn’t fund. Just as the GE-F404-IN20 is an IAF specific engine, developed specifically for the LCA and had any other Air Force ordered that particular version of the F-404, India would’ve been eligible for royalties from that sale. It’s quite clear that there is quite a bit of work involved, when a new fan is required and the number of compressor stages may change for the EPE over the EDE.


DATE:12/05/09
SOURCE:Flight International

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing is seeking an international launch customer for a 20% higher thrust version of the General Electric F414 turbofan that powers the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.


The F414 enhanced performance engine (EPE) includes an all new core and forward fan to dramatically increase the fighter's takeoff performance, said Bob Gower, Boeing vice president for F/A-18E/F.

The improvements would increase the F414 thrust rating from 22,000lbs to 26,600lbs. The baseline F414-GE-400, which also powers the Saab Gripen demonstration aircraft, is itself a 35% higher thrust version of the F404 and entered service with the Super Hornet fleet in 1998.

More recently, the US Navy, Boeing and GE have been developing durability improvements to reduce foreign object damage and specific fuel consumption, Gower told reporters participating in a Boeing media tour.

While the USN seeks a new engine core to make the F414 more durable, some international customers are interested in a new engine fan that enables higher thrust, Gower said.
"The 'enhanced durability engine' becomes the 'enhanced performance engine' when you put the fan on it," Gower said.

Although the core enhancements are already under contract with the USN, the programme is seeking an export customer to launch development of the F414 EPE, Gower said.

The international order would lead to follow-on sales for the USN, which would gradually replace its current inventory with the improved version, Gower said.


"We are not modifying the mould line of the aircraft," Gower said. "The current inlet gives us enough [air] in-take."

Gower also said the EPE would require changing the number of compressor stages, but he did not elaborate.





The figure of $75-$100 million IMO is absolutely ridiculous even for a guess. You have no idea about the contents of the Australian order and you just know that 24 SH Block -IIs were delivered. The weapons packages or the additional electronics etc have not been disclosed. How can you extrapolate from such unknown variables?


So let’s hear you actually give us a breakdown of how much the Super Hornet Block II with some IAF specific equipment will cost us with some data to back it up, not some fancy terms like “unique terms and conditions”, “specific requirements”, etc. of which you haven’t the slightest clue.

$75-100 million for a Super Hornet Block II export price is “absolutely ridiculous” as per your highness, so surely you are privy to some info that we aam junta are not privy to that will magically make Indian Super Hornets cheaper than even Gripen NGs. You seem to have a lot of idea of the contents of the Australian order, don’t you, since you claim I don’t. From what I’ve read, it’s the same standard as a US Navy SH Block II. Same weapons, same electronics, same everything. Only much later, well after the deal was announced and the price declared did the RAAF exercise an option to convert 12 SH E/Fs to Gs.

Besides if the SH Block 2 was really in the $100 million range, I doubt the Australians would have bothered to buy them in the first place considering that the JSF was promised to cost around $50 million when the US was planning to buy 2500 of these back in 2007 ! Do you think the Australians would buy an aircraft that you claim is twice as expensive as what they plan to get yet performs only half as well ??


Again, you’re displaying a lack of understanding of what drove the RAAF to buy the SH Block II in the first place. They had been looking to retire their F-111s for quite some time, since they are the only service in the world that still operates them. They had some major repairs done to keep the fleet going till 2011 and then they are going to retire their F-111s. These are their main long-range strike aircraft.

They have around 3 squadrons of older F/A-18 A/Bs in service that had some minor upgrades done. When the F-111 retires, they urgently needed a replacement for it, mainly for mud-moving. The F-35A (the version the RAAF wants) is not going to be available before 2014, and even that is in doubt now. The fastest available “interim” replacement for the F-111 was the Super Hornet Block II, and these 24 RAAF examples are pulled directly from an assembly line producing Block IIs for the USN by suitably staggering USN deliveries. The RAAF already has a large pool of trained Hornet pilots, who could easily transition to the Super Hornet with a suitable conversion course in the US. For them, even despite the high unit price of the SH Block II, it made sense to go with this as an interim fighter with small numbers bought, rather than going through an elaborate fighter competition that would take years to complete and then the tedious negotiation process that comes afterwards. And even then, Rafale, F-15E or Typhoon wouldn’t come any cheaper, and they would mean a totally new set of infrastructure requirements. Legacy Hornet to Super Hornet isn’t all that big a jump from a pilot or mechanic’s point of view as compared to an all-new type of fighter.

Which is why despite the new Aussie govt.s’ claim that it would do a thorough review of the SH purchase, when they actually did it, they ended up defending the purchase as the right thing for the RAAF. And already the first RAAF SH Blk II has flown.


As for the AMRAAMS, AIM-9Xs and etc, what makes you think that the IAF is going to buy these weapons along with the SH ? The MRCA as far as I know doesn't state a weapons package along with the aircraft. Also, considering that the IAF has access to European, Israeli and Russian AA missiles and avionics and is developing and indigenous LGB kits the need for AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs etc diminishes. Also, how can you count a follow on weapons package into the MRCA price tag ? If that were the case you could also add the pilot training costs, the fuel costs, the maintenance crew training costs, the new ground infrastructure costs etc .


You’re simply speculating that they’ll order the US SH and not order US munitions to arm these? Of course, you have no IAF source to back up that claim.

If the IAF doesn’t buy US weapons with the SH, it ends up paying for integration, either to Israel or US. Since Israel doesn’t operate SH and Python, Derby and other Israeli weapons are not used by the USN or RAAF, none of these can be used on the SH as of now. If the IAF wants them on it’s SH, Boeing will ask for money to integrate them. Even if they do transfer source codes, it’s not some child’s play to integrate a new weapon to a platform. That’s the reason that Typhoon Tranche 3 fighters have a new databus embedded in the wings so that they’re considered future-proof. Its possible to do that if the IAF wants it done, but its just costlier and more time-consuming than simply ordering weapons from the US as well. I mean what difference does it make to order US weapons as well when a US fighter can be ordered ?

Please think a little before arguing just for the sake of arguing. IAF has ordered US cluster bombs, has the AIM-9 as part of a RFP for its Jaguar’s AAM replacement, has likely placed an order for Harpoons from the US for its Jaguar fleet, and has now begun to add Raytheon’s Munitions Control Unit on all its Jaguars, but all of a sudden it will say no to US weapons for SH just because you said so?

If the IAF wants the MRCA up and running as soon as possible, it will take the AMRAAM AIM-120-C7(which is a great mid-range BVR missile) and the AIM-9X (another great WVR missile with very high off-bore sight capability) and other A2G munitions available and be happy. These missiles are also quite cheap compared to EU alternatives like the MICA, which is twice as expensive as the AMRAAM, and that’s a fact.

Anyway, whatever weapons it orders, from Israel or US or EU, its going to cost a lot. Israeli weapons are the cheapest of these 3, but without ready integration, it will take more time, more tests, and will cost extra. All of these are part of the cost of the MRCA and will also likely be considered. Where ready, cheap and integrated weapons are available, that’s that much less work and cost for the IAF to bear later on. Where you have platforms with these capabilities to be developed in the future, it’s another headache that only been postponed. Really expensive weapons like the French MICA or AASM are also going to be paid for from the IAF’s budget only. So it is essentially still a part of the MRCA’s associated contracts.

And yes, so is pilot training, since the country that is offering the MRCA will surely offer an associated training package for the first few batches of IAF pilots and instructors. Whereas ground infrastructure, upgrading airports etc is associated to the MRCA induction but not part of that contract. After all, it’s all going to be paid by the IAF only anyway.


The fact that Boeing has already good ties with the local Indian industry due to its long presence in the Indian civil aviation market and the fact that Boeing has declared that it is able to exceed the Indian government's offset requirements. The offset requirements that the Eurofighter and Rafael folk are mum about.


I’m not interested in the offsets. They can be fulfilled in various ways that will do zilch for India’s defence aerospace sector. Boeing has been planning an MRO for a long time and will do and claim it fulfills some offset requirements. They’ll tie up with suppliers for their civil range of aircraft and claim its fulfilling offsets. Anyway, regarding offsets, all the contenders have had to submit their respective offers and speculating on who is better at this is no use because we aren’t privy to how good each offer is.
The US OEM's have strict restrictions on the transfer of new technologies that the US government has not sanctioned as you would expect from any well governed country. The F-18SH sale to India has the approval of Washington and the details of the specific crucial technologies like AESA etc could be made accessible should India sign the CISMOA.


Yet, in every interview, Raytheon’s execs keep reminding that they are not yet sure about ToT of the AESA APG-79 that comes with the SH Blk II. Approval to sell the SH Blk II doesn’t mean that they are approved to transfer technology that the ITAR laws may bar from transfer because they consider them as vital to their national interests. There is talk of selling a dumbed down version of the APG-79 with older processors so that cutting-edge US tech is not handed over. What guarantee is there that they’ll transfer source codes and other critical technologies without intrusive inspections or any end use monitoring?

.
The internal deliberations of the IAF and the GoI are well up to them to decide but US technological transfers to the N-LCA program was not sanctioned by the US government at any point of time. Naturally, Lockheed's point of view would be irrelevant considering it is an American company bound by American laws. Had DRDO really wanted Lockheed's help they only had to deal with the US government to get approval for the specific technologies. Helping Indian strengthen the landing gear on an aircraft and adjust certain minor structural details is no state secret. Even the Russians could have helped and it would have been much cheaper too! The fact that the US government prevented Lockheed from helping in the N-LCA program means that the DRDO was requesting some sensitive technologies from them that the US government fell outside the current scope of bilateral understanding.


Haha..what a joke !! :D you’re basically making the case for why the IAF shouldn’t go in for a US fighter by saying that the US Gov. prevented LockMart because “DRDO was requesting some sensitive technologies” (which of course is pure speculation on your part) !

They most likely wanted consultancy regarding metallurgy to reduce the landing gear weight and for what design considerations could help them make do with lesser structural stiffening around the undercarriage. What bloody sensitive technologies go with that? It is this very unpredictable nature of the US Govt. blocking deals when it feels like that makes them so unpopular.

Before that, they prevented Boeing from taking up the consultancy that ADA wanted on how to go about doing flight testing while cutting down the number of flights and for high AoA and spin testing. Boeing had to put down ridiculous conditions based on US laws that said that basically India couldn’t export the Tejas without US Govt. permission as a result of that consultancy.

I’m pretty sure that these arguments of yours will convince everyone else that when it comes to a vital deal like the MRCA where ToT is essential, it’s a better idea to stay away from the US.

You seem to be under the impression that India is the first country that US companies are offering technology to and the US government is hampering legitimate business. That is not true at all. Lockheed, Boeing, McDonald Douglas, Raytheon etc have offered numerous technologies to so many countries on so many projects. The Japanese for instance have extensively used ToT from US companies and collaborated with US companies and institutions to build their own defense industrial base and expertise. American scientists was responsible for teaching the French how to develop MIRV technology. For giving the British the SLBM capability!


US has transferred technology to even its closest allies only with the greatest amount of coaxing. It doesn’t do anything out of magnanimity. It does it because they are close allies, long term customers and toe the US line on many policy matters. And the only requirement for this is that India toe the US line. I don’t think that fits in with India’s policy, although this Congress Govt. has basically gone about dismantling it quite well.

We all know how the UK threatened to pull out of the F-35 program when they were very unhappy with the level of access given to them, despite paying $2 billion for development.

The US will never allow complete freedom to those it helps and that is built into its laws. LockMart helped South Korea build the T-50 as part of a deal following a large KF-16 purchase. Then, they did not allow KAI to install an AESA radar available from Selex on the F/A-50 version of the T-50 because of some US law that said that no foreign weapon system that a US company helped build should be superior to US weapons. So they insisted on either a US MSA or Israeli MSA radar, and even when the Israeli Elta 2032 was chosen, it had to be integrated in the US, not Israel so that source codes were not transferred to Israel.

For those who suggest that India tie up with Boeing for the AMCA- there’ll be much knowledge to gain, if all the legalities are sorted out, but we’ll lose the freedom to do what we want with it, install whatever systems or equipment we want to install on it.
Last edited by Kartik on 27 Jan 2010 06:20, edited 1 time in total.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4521
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 27 Jan 2010 06:17

-deleted -
Last edited by putnanja on 27 Jan 2010 06:42, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5382
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 27 Jan 2010 06:21

Thanks Putnanja, done that. :)

VijayKumarSinha
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby VijayKumarSinha » 27 Jan 2010 10:55

Pes-i-kidmat: The UAE’s F-16 Block 60 Desert Falcon Fleet

The first Desert Falcons arrived in the UAE in May 2005, and production continues. Versions of this aircraft have also been entered in a number of international competitions, including Brazil’s F-X2 (eliminated) and India’s MMRCA competition.
.......In the course of development, 2 key issues came up with respect to the F-16 Block 60. One was the familiar issue of source code control for key avionics and electronic warfare systems. The other was weapons carriage.

As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.

The other issue concerned the Black Shahine derivative of MBDA’s Storm Shadow stealth cruise missile. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) defines 300 km as the current limit for cruise missiles, and the terms of the sale allow the United States to regulate which weapons the F-16s can carry. Since the Black Shahine was deemed to have a range of over 300km, the US State Department refused to let Lockheed Martin change the data bus to permit the F-16E/Fs to carry the missile. It is believed that the Mirage 2000v9 upgrades the UAE has purchased from France will address this issue, giving the UAE a platform capable of handling their new acquisition.


Great! Now I will have to resort to praying even more furiously to Xenu for the IAF to not buy this American nonsense.

Basically, the object code means you have no way of knowing what the source code is. Unless, you are crazy enough to spend enormous amount of time and energy to reverse engineer in which case you are insane. So, basically they could have a whole lot of malicious amirkhan bs there in the souce code and the poor soul flying the plane would have no clue about it.

Secondly, the MTCR restriction would also apply on any future versions of Brahmos or any other missile over 300 km range that we might want to use. Who are Americans to tell us what we can and can’t put on a plane for which we have paid fair and square?

I am really hoping that one the planes that was eliminated is this. But, just the thought of cosying up to americans is enough for so many people here to justify the purchase of this or the "super" hornet.

After spending 3 billion on R&D alone this is what UAE hast got to show. I ask people here, who profited from this ? UAE? I don’t think so! The amirkhans get to keep all the knowledge learnt from that R&D and all that UAE got to show is OBJECT CODES, and the inability to use your best weapons! :evil: They basically had to buy a whole DIFFERENT AIRCRAFT just to use a missile.

This is the difference between Brazil and UAE. They were smart enough to realize the traps.

What US wants us to do is like some nightmarish psycho movie in which the villain wants to control every action of the victim. More specifically it reminds me of BAGWELL in Prison break and I dont want India to be the person holding his pocket lining.
Last edited by VijayKumarSinha on 27 Jan 2010 11:36, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests